DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on April 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-16 (Group II) and 17-20 (Group III) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 2, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “rio.01” should be replaced with: h0.01. Claim 10 is objected to because it is dependent from claim 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meier et al. (US 2016/0152853 A1).
Claims 1-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meier et al. (US 2016/0152853 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 12, Meier et al. disclose: (1) a polyethylene composition (Abstract; Example 1 in Table 1; see also paragraphs 0078-0084) comprising:
80 wt% to 99.9 wt% ethylene content, based on ethylene content plus comonomer content (Example 1 in Table 1: 100-3.7 = 96.3%);
20 wt% to 0.1 wt% a C3 to C40 a-olefin comonomer content, based on ethylene content plus comonomer content (Example 1 in Table 1: 3.7% of hexene); and
wherein the polyethylene composition has the following properties:
a density within the range from 0.930 g/cm3 to 0.975 g/cm3 (Example 1 in Table 1: 0.943);
Mw/Mn of 10 or more (Example 1 in Table 1: 21; Mw = 211,114; Mn = 211,114 / 21 = 10,053);
Mz of 800,000 g/mol or more (Example 1 in Table 1: 1,232,440);
Mz/Mn of 70 or more (Example 1 in Table 1: 1,232,440 / 10,053 = 123); and
g'LcB of 0.75 or less (Example 1 in Table 1: 0.63);
(2) wherein the polyethylene composition has the following properties:
density is within the range from 0.935 to 0.970 g/cm3 (Example 1 in Table 1: 0.943);
Mw/Mn is 12 or more (Example 1 in Table 1: 21; Mw = 211,114; Mn = 211,114 / 21 = 10,053);
Mz of 900,000 g/mol or more (Example 1 in Table 1: 1,232,440);
Mz/Mn is 85 or more (Example 1 in Table 1: 1,232,440 / 10,053 = 123); and
g'LcB is 0.70 or less (Example 1 in Table 1: 0.63);
(3) wherein the C3 to C40 a-olefin comonomer is selected from 1-butene, 1-hexene, 1-octene, and combinations thereof (Example 1 in Table 1: 3.7% of hexene);
(12) wherein the polyethylene composition exhibits a bimodal molecular weight distribution as determined by GPC (paragraphs 0078-0084: relatively high mw fractions from second reactor correspond to a first mw distribution; and relatively low mw fractions from first reactor correspond to a second mw distribution; see also paragraph 0019).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Meier et al. (US 2016/0152853 A1).
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Meier et al. (US 2016/0152853 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Meier et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. The exemplary embodiment of Meier et al. discloses a “MIF” of 38, which satisfies the instantly claimed (5) HLMI (21.6 kg, 190°C) within the range from 30 to 70 g/10 min (Example 1 in Table 1; see also paragraph 0069). They fail to explicitly disclose: (5) a MI (2.16 kg, 190°C) within the range from 0.5 to 1.0 g/10 min; and (5) a MIR (HLMI/MI) within the range from 30 to 140. However, the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to satisfy the instantly claimed MI and MIR properties because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties. At the very least, the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of satisfying the instantly claimed MI and MIR properties because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties.
Therefore if not anticipated by Meier et al., the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of satisfying the instantly claimed MI and MIR properties because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties.
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Meier et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to explicitly disclose the following set of properties (6):
degree of shear thinning (DST) within the range from 0.930 to 0.970;
complex viscosity at 628 rad/s within the range from 300 to 400 Pa*s; and
complex viscosity at 0.01 rad/s within the range from 20,000 to 35,000 Pa*s.
However, the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to satisfy the instantly claimed shear thinning and complex viscosity properties because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties. At the very least, the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of satisfying the instantly claimed shear thinning and complex viscosity properties because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties.
Therefore if not anticipated by Meier et al., the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of satisfying the instantly claimed shear thinning and complex viscosity properties because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the teachings of Meier et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to explicitly disclose: (7) a LOW Ratio of greater than 0.03; and (8) a LOW Ratio within the range from 0.031 to 0.6, where the LOW Ratio is defined as:
PNG
media_image1.png
60
84
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where MI is melt index (g/10 min at 2.16 kg, 1 90°C); h628 is the complex viscosity at 628 rad/s (in Pa*s); Mn is number-average molecular weight (g/mol); and g'LcB is the long-chain branching index. However, the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to satisfy the instantly claimed LOW Ratio because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties. At the very least, the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of satisfying the instantly claimed LOW Ratio because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties.
Therefore if not anticipated by Meier et al., the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of satisfying the instantly claimed LOW Ratio because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the teachings of Meier et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to explicitly disclose: (9) a Broad-High Ratio of greater than or equal to 0.2; and (10) a Broad-High Ratio within the range from 0.20 to 6.0., where the Broad-High Ratio is defined as:
PNG
media_image2.png
62
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Mz and Mn are z- and n- average molecular weights, respectively (g/mol); HLMI is high load melt index (g/10 min at 21.6 kg, 190°C); h0.01 is the complex viscosity at 0.01 rad/s (in Pa*s); and g'LcB is the long-chain branching index. However, the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to satisfy the instantly claimed Broad-High Ratio because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties. At the very least, the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of satisfying the instantly claimed Broad-High Ratio because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties.
Therefore if not anticipated by Meier et al., the skilled artisan would have expected the composition of Meier et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of satisfying the instantly claimed Broad-High Ratio because the composition of Meier et al. satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed composition, along with the instantly claimed set of {density, Mw/Mn, Mz, Mz/Mn & g'LcB} properties.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (US 2016/0152853 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of Meier et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. The exemplary embodiment of Meier et al. discloses a Mn of 10,053, which satisfies: (4) a Mn within the range from 8,000 to 15,000 g/mol (Example 1 in Table 1: 21; Mw = 211,114; Mn = 211,114 / 21 = 10,053). This exemplary embodiment fails to disclose: (4) a Mw within the range from 120,000 to 180,000 g/mol. However, the general teachings of Meier et al. contemplate a Mw as low as 180,000 g/mol (see paragraph 0022). In light of this, it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists – see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, the composition of Meier et al. would have obviously embraced embodiments satisfying the instantly claimed Mw (within the range from 120,000 to 180,000 g/mol) because: (a) the general teachings of Meier et al. contemplate a Mw as low as 180,000 g/mol; and (b) it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 11, the teachings of Meier et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. The exemplary embodiment of Meier et al. features 51 wt% of relatively low mw fractions from a first reactor and 49 wt% of relatively high mw fractions from a second reactor, which satisfies: (11) from 50.1 to 59 wt% of a low molecular weight fraction (LMWF) and from 41 to 49.9 wt% of a high molecular weight fraction (HMWF) (Example 1 in Table 1; see also paragraphs 0078-0084). They fail to explicitly disclose: (11) wherein the LMWF has higher density than the HMWF. However, the teachings of Meier et al. appear to obviously embrace the instantly claimed relationship due to the limited possible configurations of this blend. Specifically, these densities are: (a) relatively high/low, (b) relatively low/high, or (c) the same. Furthermore, there is little in the teachings of Meier et al. to suggest that these densities are the same (leaving the options of (a) or (b)).
International Search Report
The international search report cited one X-reference. This reference has been considered.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
May 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights